Science a GoGo's Home Page Forums General Discussion Not-Quite-Science Forum atheists.. less intelligent than Religious people

Belief, or lack of it, has little to do with intelligence, or knowledge. It has everything to do with trust, conviction and faith, all of which are qualities that require neither massive intelligence or extensive knowledge.

People have been ready to die for their belief-- less so for their lack of it. The interesting part of this is that no one can prove the belief is true although to the believer it is the foundation of their existence.

It is nothing to do with intelligence or knowledge--- just everything to do with faith.

Belief is subjective. Intelligence and knowledge can have a profound effect on belief.


Trust, conviction and faith are derived from interpretations of reality, and a belief in the existing relationship of the self and that perceived reality.

Do you believe the world (planet Earth) is spherical in shape, or do you know it is spherical in shape? Can you separate whatever you know about the Earths shape from belief to say you have no belief in its shape but rather know strictly as an intellectual understanding based on knowledge derived thru the combined consensus of scientific evidence? Do you believe in science as the means of your current understanding or do you take it all on faith?

I Believe.

because , I personally can not say that I am 100% positive that it is spherical in shape.

I have read that it is.
I have seen pictures that depict it being spherical.
yet , I personally cannot say that I know that it is.

the odds from accounts of others are that it is spherical.

can you say that you know 100% that it is spherical?

have you ever traveled around the earth , north to south and then south to north again?

have you?

I could even say that I have Faith that the earth is spherical.

a strong Faith in the earth being spherical.

but Im not 100% sure.

OPTICS , EYEBALLS , ETC...



LOLZ

What not flat and carried on a man or turtles back?

Those are historic texts are far more accurate than science aren't they

So, Ellis, does this generalization really mean anything that is, specifically true? When it comes to finding the truth (TT), I always feel wary whenever I hear generalizations. To me they don't quite seem to be TT. I have the same feeling about the following And the followingMaybe we need a separate thread dedicated to finding TT, and not just spend our time stating some vague generalizations of what TT could be, eh!

But I think belief is vague and sometimes slippery. The beliefs of a group about a single subject will be many and varied. The majority will believe that their point of view is the correct one, and some of those will believe it is the only correct one, and some of those will want to make everyone conform to that view,sometimes with force. Some of the minority will not believe that the point of view is correct, some are not sure. Some want to ban the point of view whether they think it is correct or not... and quite a lot of them want to fight to preserve their own point of view.

Some will use their intelligence and/or knowledge to find a solution they think sensible, which hurts no one--- others want a solution that is correct, even if some people are hurt. Such solutions are based on what is believed to be the situation and what is believed to be the solution.

This situation is true in out private lives and in our dealings with other nations. Our beliefs are seen as worth fighting for, because they are 'right'.

This is bad enough when we are merely considering our own views, but when we claim that our ideas are divinely inspired and god has ordained that we should.....(whatever) we have often started yet another of our epic global disagreements based on our beliefs. It is too hard to argue with god.

Belief is part of human ego. Whether vague or compulsive, belief is not the issue but rather the attachment to perceptions of reality. Science would like to make it the reality of behavior patterns due to DNA sequences. Psychology would like to make it about cause and effect or exposure to circumstance. Free will is going to be subjective and as long as you want to complain about something, you're going to find something to complain about.

Or the beliefs of a single person like yourself will be many and varied. Look at your beliefs about beliefs and all the generalizations you have made.

The majority doesn't have more of an attachment to righteousness. That is a quality taken by even the minority. Some take it for granted a majority means righteousness and truth. Politics uses that kind of reasoning and leverage to manipulate belief.

Some believe in Santa Claus and some do not... Your tabloid like report and reasoning is like vanilla pudding without the vanilla.

Unless you are Hitler, Saddam Hussein or Charles Manson.

The ends justifies the means approach. Part of our human history and a process used by the intellect of some of man kinds most wealthy and influential people.

Really. What does all of this have to do with your (as the Reverend put it) vague and sweeping reference to the intellect and belief being separate when making choices?
Aren't we just speaking of the intelligence and awareness of man/woman?


Right is going to be seen as right and wrong as wrong no matter what influence you are going to use as your source of reason. Responsibility and destructive human behavior is a relative idea no matter what side of a fence you grow up on.

Religion is seen by some as an evil but without it's basic tenets in our society, morality is seen as something much more than something defined by the intellect. It is seen as a quality of love which is part of human nature.

Being that Humans have a propensity to display love or hatred. One can make choices to become focused on whatever they want.

Those that focus on what is wrong with life put very little attention on what is right, because their focus is consumed by what they complain about and believe is wrong.

Those that focus on what is right have a profound affect on stimulating their surroundings with what they believe in.

Those that focus on the flexibility of human nature and what allows man to experience both good and bad might see something much larger than good and bad.

Beliefs change. The Universe and what is in it, is a reflection of both change and stability.

Those that focus on what comes and goes never get to know the underlying reality of stability in life, or that which imbues the nature in human nature.

Call it whatever you want or refuse to call it anything.

Whilst religionists and intellectuals argue over what it is, few will notice if there is anything to experience beyond what is believed or argued other than changing opinion and frustration over what the other guy is doing.

Humans love to waste their efforts in life on the meaningless reality of what the other is doing, in order to protect themselves in their own ideas of righteousness.
Then they die.... What a waste of the intellect.

You almost expressed something TT be careful



Many choose another trait called indifference seen most often as those who choose to become reclusive the reasons are many any varied from Misanthropy to psychological conditions but there are records of the behavior of certain humans in the oldest written records.



I am not sure the universe gives a rats one way or another about some pathetic little species it was here long before us it will be there long after we are gone.




Oh so profound so what do you propose we should be doing guru TT?

Ah you noticed something. That shows that you are not as self absorbed as you profess to be in your own ideas.

A trait as you have described (being of record), is not usually self prescribed. Any records of observation no matter how old are going to be on the side of the observer and not the observed. It's not likely the observed came forward and identified him or herself as being indifferent.

Anyway, being that you began this paragraph with the idea that someone made a choice based on varied conditions inclusive of..(as you put it), misanthropy and psychological reasons, and by definition of those terms, it would not be indifference. Misanthropy (hatred, dislike, or distrust of humankind) or psychological conditioning most likely generates distance thru egoic identification with that which is mistrusted or feared.
A recluse is hardly indifferent.


I recognize your uncertainty.
You may also be assuming the universe and consciousness (human or otherwise) are separate from each other. Also you may assume humans are isolated (to what you know of human history) to planet earth, and what you accept from what you are told. Being that may be a foundation of supposition, I would not assume the universe exists solely on your assumptions.
There are lots of things a person could do when making choices, if there is an open mind.
If the door is closed to all that is not written in a book or defined by the ego..., the possibilities are filtered thru a rendition of ideas bound by beliefs.

Ahh the ego sub-plot again ... you do have a very wide definition on that word.

To me issues such as misanthropy is about distrust of another and it has little to do with self but one I guess could test that premise. An interesting question to test would be does a misanthrope distrust people because they recognize distrustful traits in themselves so project themselves into others or do they distrust others because they aren't like them, so does ones perception of ones self have anything to do with misanthropy.

I did a bit of reading around thru google scholar but in what seems like alarmingly normal in psychology that they never really test distinct things. On the science and medical side I did find some interesting works that from an evolutionary point of view group living and co-operation while having survival benefits also carried risks like epidemic disease. So there is a theory that innate distrust of others may be have some genetic success to drive it.

An interesting question in reading thru the psychological references was the concept in certain religions most notably Roman catholic and Islaam via "mortification of the flesh" rituals.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mortification_of_the_flesh



So it would be also interesting to look at religious beliefs of misanthropes but I can't find any studies on it.




By indifferent I mean about "self" obviously they are not indifferent about others. As I said I can't find any good studies or science on the subject of what a misanthrope thinks of themselves.




As scientists we have no option but to take that position the universe existed before us it will in all likelihood exist long after us so the no assumption position is the universe is not about humans or anything to do with them. In this instance it is you who is assuming things by apparently "opening you mind" you know what all this is about and the universe is suddenly about something that only you can see ... that is a massive assumption on your behalf.

I have to say in this area at least Paul is consistent he shortens the universe existence down to 6000 years or so because he believes the universe is about humans. Do you have a view on the universe age is it 6000 years or 13 billion?




Ahh the old "open my mind and I will see" that is a bit cliché TT how would I know when my mind is open and that what I see isn't just delusional. Is there and authority that tells me when my "mind is open"?

Really... No other option because the absolute reality is that consciousness of man and universe are separate, and the manifestation of reality has/had a beginning?
Proof?

Sorry, that is your assumption. I'm not the only one who can see or understands.
Peer groups that assume do not dictate reality.

The universe has probable beginnings and endings within the constructs of understanding that is limited to physical reality (what you can see feel and touch with the outer senses). Beyond that, what Science assumes is within the nothing that is not a nothing, is timeless. Within that is more than one universe and time as a construct is not linear.

Science postulates the atom is 99.99% empty space, and yet it still clings to the idea of reality being solid, with everything being subject to the movements and evolution of solid form. Kinda reminds me of the country western song.. "Lookin for love in all the wrong places"



What authority do you recognize?

Any other choice requires an assumption standard logic

Event A happens
Event B happens

The null case and most likely case is the two events are unlinked to make a linkage you either undertake a proof or make assumptions



As to infer a linkage needs a proof not the null and most likely case.




Totally wrong from a scientific point only classic physics demands the idea of reality being solid and that has been known to be wrong for 100 years.

Modern physics with the discovery of QM knows the world is most distinctly not solid and that there is no local reality and it can and has been proven. It is one of the hardest things layman and some misguided scientists struggle with.

We have a fairly standard description



So far from what you are saying as scientists we offer one of two options (a)give up locality or (b)give up reality .... make your choice.

So contrary to what you suggest science would almost agree with you.




None hence I believe only what I can test and I always give precedence to the overwhelming likely and prove against the most likely.

So for science the universe existed 13.8 Billion years ago on best data, in the form I can comprehend in your pseudo guru speak, Humans arrived 200 000 years ago on best evidence science has.

Overwhelming most likely situation is the two events are unlinked unless there is data to establish a link which there just doesn't appear to be unless you have some that slipped by science.

You still avoided answering a direct question by using mumbo jumbo pseudo speak what do you believe the age of the universe is, append to it in the form humans could comprehend if it makes you more fuzzy and warm ... give a sort of approximate date in years.

No I gave you an answer based on reality and what it is.
OK. Now. Apply that to any year and any moment. Technically speaking the universe is original in the reality of the Universe at any moment in time. What it was a minute ago is not what it is now.

Also, there is no time in which the Universe begins or ends. There are changes in perception of its reality based on who is looking and how, and there is no one single universe.

That in science terms is called the multiverse, so I am beginning to understand your views

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiverse

Brian Greene in the article lists 9 different types but there are many more and I sort of need to ask more questions to get the picture

Probably the first one is does your multiverse cycle or is it linear with no repeats of previous states?

The hardest part of trying to understand religious or spiritual people is getting them to discuss the physical interpretation of their views. I am not sure if it is because they think we will view them as stupid or that they think the idea is unique to their spirituality or some other obscure reason.

Science has pretty much looked at every proposed model I have not seen a new model of the universe in a good many years. Some of the models are untestable, some are flawed, some are unrealistic and some are plausible, the only stupid models are ones that are blatantly inconsistent.

You could probably answer that question with how you label the person you are speaking to and why you label them the way you do. There might be a correlation to how they respond to you and the way you approach them by association to your label and definition of the personality.


It constantly recreates itself without destroying itself. It is not linear tho it can appear to take linear direction. Pasts presents and futures are multidimensional without any one point of reality being greater than another. Each universe as it appears is valid even if another one appears to supersede another in a linear timeline. Time is a construct used to facilitate linear experience, tho consciousness is not limited to time nor does it live by time. Consciousness creates time as well as the Universe to reflect the potential within possible and probable universes and realities.

Science used to think the mind was a byproduct of the body. Now it looks at the body as an instrument of mind and also sees that health is greatly affected by the mind.
I find it interesting that science sees the DNA structure of the body as a closed system rather than one that is affected by states of consciousness. I also find it interesting that there is a discrepancy between spiritual and physical sciences, where the same idea that was applied to mind and body are seen as the rule for reality. Physical science sees the universe as the body and whatever is behind it as some kind of unexplained structure of physical law or chaos depending on the theorist.
Spiritual science sees that which underlies the physical universe as universal mind, and experiences consciousness of mind (being human or universal) as one in the same. Physical science studies the effect and does not have an instrument to study the cause, basically because it does not trust the mind.

Spiritual science trains the inward senses and studies universal mind.
Physical science builds instruments based on the relative understanding of the observed universe as seen thru the outward going senses, and the mind as it is seen and observed with physical instruments. There is very little trust in the observer unless the observer is validated by someone who has the same experience. If it doesn't repeat its not valid or real, or at best questionable and unimportant.

Religion is altogether a different reality. Religion is built on the acceptance of something that is believed to be real but does not require experience. Spiritual science is nothing like religion. It doesn't follow blind leadership nor fantasy. All aspects of reality are consciously approached thru the inwardly trained senses into stable experiences of consciousness above and beyond random thoughts or feelings.
In other words validation is not a thought or a feeling. It is more of a known.


A young female student accused Carl Jung of being an atheist. Jung was confused and asked the student where she had gotten that idea. The student paraphrased a quote she had read in which Jung said he didn't believe God existed. Jung smiled and said "Dear girl, rest easy, When we have a relationship to a particular thing or experience with it - belief/faith ceases to be a factor. The truth is this, I have had the experience of being gripped by something that is stronger than myself, something that people call God. So, I will never say that I believe that God exists. I must say I know God exists!"

Thank you for taking the time and effort to articulate that TT.

It is pretty close to what I would class a modal reality multiverse and so it makes it a lot easier to understand you.

Have you ever read any Saul Kripke works?

I now realize why I find many of your comments annoyingly imprecise to me because they are forms of Kripke semantics not because you seek to be annoying or evasive but because of your beliefs.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kripke_semantics

Never heard of Kripke until now.

Whenever the mind becomes set in its approach, any modality outside of the familiar can become annoying.
Depending on the individual ego, the obsessive compulsive orientation of self prescribed methods scramble to force the unfamiliar into the familiar, rather than stepping easily into another paradigm.

The ego is a construct of consciousness built to relate to a physical world. It (ego) sees itself as self-conscious action, and attempts to separate itself from action and considers action as an object.
When ego expands (into higher states of conscious awareness), it retains its specialized self-consciousness, but experiences itself as an identity within and as a part of action.

Instead of fighting it, it has become one with it in the experience of union.
The biblical reference "I and my Father are One" comes from this state of expanded awareness, where Jesus spoke of his union with the Father or Universal mind.

You call it a belief. That is what religion does with it. Religion is a belief system.

Without direct experience of anything, all concepts followed are only a belief at the surface level of the mind.

I live within the experience of something that is bigger than a me. You and everyone else who has argued with me wants it defined. It never will be defined within any terms. You can only point toward concepts, that point toward something that is beyond definition, and/or you can experience and describe what you experience. Generally speaking those that do not know what you speak of don't understand what they themselves do not experience.

You would really enjoy Saul Kripke he is of jewish faith but a brilliant mathematician and interesting philosopher.

I find him frustrating not thru anything personal or real but because his intuitionistic logic always antagonizes my classic logic I am a zealot of, the problem you discuss above